[address-policy-wg] address-policy-wg

Hello,
connection tracking in CGN environments isn't a issue (just poor network
design, if you don't have such data). For example, mobile networks are
using NAT in wide spread and they haven't such problems you're
mentioning. It's not hard to pair flow data from private and public part
of your network to get proper output. There're also commercial tools on
the marked cappable doing that job.

The only one real solution is move to IPv6. Everything else is just a
workaround for a short period. And as we cannot kill IPv4, for long
period we'll need both protocols - and also new organizations should
have possibility to start their business and get *some* adresses - as
long as possible.

Conservative RIPE policy helps in that manner. Everything else is just
attempt to pillage in short-term...

With regards,
Daniel


On 29.10.2015 14:01, Alessio Genova wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> we are working as Wireless Internet Service Provider in Italy, and we
> became a LIR at the beginning of 2013, requesting  a /22.
> 
> From 2013 to today our customers have grown up to more than 5000. Today
> every time Policy requests us a log about some fraudulent behavior made
> from one of our customer by internet, we have to give them a lot of logs
> (Gbytes of logs) because of we cannot associate public IP addresses to
> every our customer.
> 
>  
> 
> There are a lot of public IP addresses not used, and we are receiving a
> lot of proposals about selling IPs at 10€ / each .
> 
> I think that RIPE should verify who really is using public IPs, or
> should introduce a way to avoid IPs market, giving IPs at who really
> needs them.
> 
>  
> 
> Best Regards
> 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4233 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/address-policy-wg/attachments/20151029/b13f2518/attachment.p7s>